DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits. As of the date of this communication, no Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) have been filed on behalf of this case.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1-20 are directed toward at least abstract idea without significantly more. In accordance with MPEP § 2106, the rationale for this determination is explained below.
Representative claim 1 is directed towards a system, claim 8 is directed towards a method, claim 16 is directed towards a non-transitory computer-readable medium, which are statutory categories of invention.
Although, claim 1 is directed toward a statutory category of invention, the claim however, is directed toward a judicial exception namely an abstract idea. The limitations that set forth the abstract idea recites: generate a first graph network based on the first information item, the first graph network comprising a first plurality of nodes, wherein each node of the first plurality of nodes is associated with a property, the first graph network further comprising a first plurality of edges, wherein each edge of the first plurality of edges couples two nodes of the first graph network, and wherein each edge of the first plurality of edges represents a connection between the properties represented by the first plurality of nodes; generate a second graph network based on the second information item, wherein the second graph network comprises a second plurality of edges and a second plurality of nodes; determine a first node of the first graph network represents a property, wherein the first node is associated with a first node data object;
determine a second node of the second graph network represents the property, wherein the second node is associated with a second node data object; combine the first node data object with the second node data object to generate a combined node data object, wherein the combined node data object comprises a portion of a combined graph network formed from a combination of the first graph network and the second graph network. These limitations, but for a computer are capable of being performed in the human mind including the use of pen and paper, and are thus, grouped under the abstract idea of Mental Processes in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed as a whole under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (see MPEP 2106.04(d)), the additional elements provided by the claim amount to extra-solution activity and merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. In particular the claim recites the additional elements: receive a first information item; receive a second information item; and output the combined graph network. This amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity because such activities are merely pre data gathering and post data outputting. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Whereas, the limitations, a computer-readable memory that store computer-executable instructions; and one or more processors in communication with the memory, wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to at least, which are recited at a high level of generality and are the mere use of a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and/or instructions to implement the abstract idea on the computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Simply adding insignificant extra-solution activities and applying the abstract idea by a computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claim does not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claim does not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claim does not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Therefore, the claim does not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor does it effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claim is directed to abstract ideas.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim recites extra-solution activities and merely applies the abstract idea by a computer. Viewing these limitations individually, the receive a first information item, receive a second information item, and output the combined graph network, are used only for insignificant extra-solution activity because such activity amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting in implementing the aforementioned abstract concept. Furthermore, the courts have recognized receiving or transmitting data over a network to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed as insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)II; TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Additionally, the limitations generically, referring to a computer-readable memory that store computer-executable instructions; and one or more processors, also do not constitute significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment1. Viewing these limitations as a combination, the additional elements amount to no more than merely applying the exception using generic computer components, executing basic functions of a computer. Merely applying an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the limitations of the claim as a whole, when viewed individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
A review of dependent claims 2-7, likewise, do not recite any limitations that would remedy the deficiencies outlined above. The claims only further add to the abstract idea, with no elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more. For instance, claim 13 uses a machine learning model to generate a graph embedding, which is basically using a computer algorithm to create output information. Thus, while the dependent claims may slightly narrow the abstract idea by further describing it, they do not make it less abstract and are rejected accordingly. Further still, claims 8-20 suffer from substantially the same deficiencies as outlined with respect to claims 1-7 and are also rejected accordingly.
Prior Art
Examiner was unable to find prior art to read upon all of Applicant's independent claim language. The prior art made of record are references found closest to applicant's claimed limitations.
a) Tang et al. (US 11810001 B1) teaches knowledge graph with nodes that represent any combination of properties (e.g., real estate lots, homes, etc.), or any field or value associated with property, and each edge having a connection between two nodes.
b) Andrew et al. (US 20160259841 A1) teaches graph has nodes that correspond to items (e.g., entities, person, parcels) and has edges connecting two or more nodes that correspond to a relationship between the connected nodes.
c) Wang et al. (US 20220335307 A1) teaches collecting data from a plurality of data sources. Extracting structured data and unstructured data from the collected data, wherein unstructured data is extracted using an unsupervised machine learning process. Generates a plurality of sub-graph structures comprising a sub-graph structure for each of the data sources based on at least a portion of the extracted structured data and unstructured data and combines the plurality of sub-graph structures to form a combined graph structure representing the collected data from the plurality of data sources, resulting in a comprehensive knowledge graph of the combined graph structure.
d) Henderson (US 20120209886 A1) teaches distributed graph database network, having a first set of data nodes, each first set of data nodes having an identifier and a first set of edges linking at least two of the first set of data nodes, creating in a computer system a second graph database node having a second set of data nodes, each second set of data nodes having an identifier and a second set of edges linking at least two of the second set of data nodes and sharing a first subset of the first graph database node with the second graph database node, wherein the shared first subset is merged into the second graph database, at least partially synchronizing the first graph database node and the second graph database node so that substantially similar information is available to users of the first graph database node and the second graph database node and distributed collaboration on the first subset occurs as new data nodes are created and linked to the first subset through addition of new edge.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Errol CARVALHO whose telephone number is (571)272-9987. The Examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:30-7:00 Alt Fri
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached on 571- 270-7537. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/E CARVALHO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
1 See, Alice Corp. Pty Ltd. v. CLS Bank lnt'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2360 (2014) (noting that none of the hardware recited “offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking ‘the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment,’ that is, implementation via computers” (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610-11 (2010))).